Good afternoon and welcome back to DAY 5 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Forstater Vs CGD.
I'm @wommando and we're due to start at 2pm where Maya Forstater will continue to give her evidence. Catch up with this morning here:…
Abbrevs used:
Maya Forstater (MF) & counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

Respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD)

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
C3: Complainant 3
Here is Maya Forstater's redacted witness statement:
We are back. EJ reminds everyone that there is restricted reporting order enforced which means it's a criminal offence to report the names and emails of specific individuals. Let's contimue
OD: we were just getting up to the SPG meeting. Now you were informed by Mark plant there hadn't been a consensus reached about membership renewal and there'd be a process and a report would be produced
MF: yes
OD: now 1374 in bundle, here we see MA telling Mark we need a chat and they have to tread carefully. He'd decided there'd be no formal investigation
MF: I don't know
OD: and Mark was getting advice and guidance
MF: yes they didn't have a policy and were using me as a case study
OD: Mark also informed you it was your tweets and it was how to resolve them
MF: yes but it was presented as CHD putting forward a policy and my tweets were the case in point they were trying to work the policy out on
OD: page 1479, you say thanks for updating me mark and I'd like to make the case this is a policy around the world (costs to read)
You attach the article and you added graphics of men and women labelling sex organs
OD: you wanted CGD to publish
MF: no (missed)
OD: and after an amended policy was sent round that said new CGD policies... all staff have responsibility to read... you replied critiquely the draft policy
MF: I raised a couple of issues
ID: you copied this to the entire CGDE and Mark plant separate
OD: do you ot think you should have replied to Sara alone as the email suggested.
MF: no because I wanted to make my comments in writing
OD: the invite said you can speak to sara,
MF: yes (reads response)
OD: so do you think that was appropriate
MF: it was within CGD culture. I didn't want to take up time in the workshop but did want to raise them
OD: so it was deliberate to share with your colleagues
MF: yes she said it'd be discussed in the workshop with all of them
OD: you theme is your continuing to ask for space for your views
MF: If it was a workshop to discuss this
OD: there's a theme here you wanted space then sent it to everyone for discussion. It's a repeated pattern for to air your views
MF: no I wasn't compelling them I was responding to discuss the policy as was the culture of the order
OD: page 493, (reads staff email about policy)
Page 501, we see luke easly asking ombudsman that he's been tasked with getting an advisory committee
OD: an advisory Committee was being sought not investigation.
MF: I didn't know about that
OD: you describe in your statement as kafka esque investigation
OD: the purpose was advice
MF: yes advice on how to deal with me
OD: there were genuine attempts to get someone to advise and you accept Ruth sarbo was entirely independent.
MF: yes she didn't speak to me
OD: page 1506,this is email (reads email)
OD: can you see the effort is an effort to move forward it's not damnation if your beliefs
MF: no
OD: the purpose its to come up with a way forward

Back and forth about the people involved in the process to get a advisory panel
OD: that wasn't my question. It's far from a kaka esque investigation they want to move forward
MF: I don't think so
OD: there's no suggestion of what you say
MF: no if there'd been a process I would have had a role in it
OD reads email from and there is confusion about the person it is from.
OD: we can see that's the aim
MF: (reads) to make recommendations about maya forstater yes
OD reads another email about recommendations and maya conducting herself in a way of CGD policy
OD: you were updated about this
MF: yes, not on terms of reference but said he found an expert in employment law
OD: page 539, Mark plant's email and says he's brought the issue to this side of the atlantic and states colleagues
OD: Mark advised against you emailing MA. You didn't complain about the process at this stage
MF: no I emailed him back
OD: late Dec 2018 you first set up separate twitter account
MF: yes
OD: nowhere in these tweets do you refer to men in heels makeup men in dresses, throughout this you used respectable language. You used the terms teanswomen at one point not male
MF: the description if Philip bunce was taken from his own description
MF: calling him a crossdresser was a description
OD: you've reminded me you would find that tweet description
MF: but here you use very different language to the tweets you used earlier
MF: no I don't think I do
OD: you don't think it's different in tone
MF: the language is not different I say TW who remain legally men can be removed from women's spaces
OD: you felt able to use the language here, you chose the language
MF: yes I chose it
OD: we see Mark plant contacted you to discuss the report, p. 1619, where he reaches out if you need next week to discuss
MF: I think I reach out to him don't I. I say can we meet next week
OD: yes and you met and told you there be QI process
MF: I didn't know the process was separate
OD: but you knew QI was going good do the diversity training and he told who you the committee was
MF: I didn't know they were separate or any of that
OD reads email from Ruth sarbo about the QI assessment and that's what management did isn't it. They instructed QI asking to do deeper analysis
MF: yes
OD: on 1629, reads an email from Mark plant and so you understood process and didn't complian
MF: I understood QI would investigate and talk to me and in the context of thinking about these policies and freedom of speech
OD: but you knew your tweets were th subject of the investigation
MF: yes
OD: and when you sought for an update from MP, QI investigation was ongoing, Mark tells you you'd have it this week.
OD: we can see the reports we're sent from QI to mark plant and luke easly. Page 1744, we can see discussion between senior management about the report. Look at Luke easly he says he's not asking Maya to agree just to ground rules...
OD: it's clear that having reviewed the reports management is still not making condemnation of your beliefs, quite the opposite, they should be respected
MF: luke is
OD: a short version of the Qi report taking out management guidance was sent to you
MF : yes
OD: (reads response too fast)
You read this and described it as a pile of crap
MF: not to mark to a friend
MF: I wrote a long response and I didn't use that language but I was very clear it was factually incorrect
OD shows reply
MF: yes
OD: you say you don't think the QI report is useful finding a way forward....I do not accept it in its current state
OD: so although you don't say its crap you are clear of your thoughts
MF: yes
OD: do you accept in a workplace that may feel offended by one another neither has the right to persuade each other
MF: I'm ot sure that's right, it's a think-tank about persuading people
OD: so you think it's a right at work to try and persuade people at work you're right
MF: I think I have the same right to talk about my understanding if the word sex as anyone else
OD: ...D you accept its a laudable aim that people shouldn't seek to persuade each other or is that your right in the workplace?
MF: I've said from the beginning we should be able to have a respected discussion
OD: .. an employer has to ensure tolerance between employees..
MF: I'm not an employment specialist

OD: and you say the tax work had nothing to do with sex and gender
MF: no it didnt
OD: page 235, an email to Kathleen stock (reads it out) that was your opinion that senior management hadn't thought about it clearly
MF: Mark hadn't expressed substantive views on it
OD: then what you did send to management under exclusionary language I think here they're rejecting the definition of women as adult human... do you accept its offensive to some transwomen that they're not women
MF: yes
OD: page 1784, you correct what you see as factual inaccuracies and you could do that
MF: they weren't corrected
OD: they took your report into account
MF: I didn't receive a response
OD: Mark took you through specific tweet language
MF: not really. We talked first about QI report and I said I didn't accept it an put aside and talk about constructive ways forward

MF: he didn't bring up specific language and I asked what had I offended people with and then he said about the black and red video
OD: and the tweet about material reality
MF: he didn't tell me any others
OD: you informed him you understood the sensitivity of your tweets.
MF: I understood CGD didn't have an appetite to talk about it
OD: this is mark plant trying to commend for the extension of your fellowship (reads email)
OD: do you accept you made all those concessions
MF: they weren't concessions because I hadn't dismissed the dignity and feelings of trans people
OD: you acknowledged the concession of sensitivity
MF: I did say I'd keep it out if the workplace
OD: but you understood the sensitivities or you didn't
MF: he doesn't bullet point that and I don't remember acknowledging them
OD types and speaks mayas response "I respect the feeling and dignity of people but it doesn't change reality"
MF: I said I wouldn't raise a convo about it
OD: it was on the basis that the convo was so you old keep your fellowship... and you werent continued and and you walked out the meeting
MF: yes I was upset I was crying
OD (reads an email from MF to Mark.)

OD: we can see your final request to remain a fellow sent to mark plant for MA and colleagues
MF: yes
OD: at this stage you were angry
MF: I was upset. I'd been upset since December
OD reads an email from maya on p.2138
OD: so you were angry when you wrote this but believed you were restrained
MF: no I said I would restrained myself publically
OD: page 2107 the same email chain, (reads)
MF: I say again that you cannot change sex
OD: suggesting some situations you wouldn't else you would have said all situations
MF: i don't know I didn't want to make a categorical statement I couldn't stick to. Social situations is a vague term
OD: page 1823, (reads.. too fast)again you're arguing for this debate to be had ag CGD
MF: yes the debate should be had
OD: your own friend said you were digging your heels in and wasn't conducive to keeping fellowship
OD: tou said that would be good advice for self preservation but I can't accept them gagging me...outside of CGD
OD: noone told you not to raise it outside CGd
MF: well my personal twitter account isn't CGd
OD: but cGD was on your profile
MF: they were in my professional network
OD: we went over various places your CGD status linked....

OD: turn to page. 135, your letter being forward on, so he did send it
MF: no the members not the entirety and I now know they were organising opposition to me
OD: and in this covering email he discusses the convos he's had with you and what he explained to you (reads) so you accepted leaving the pamphlet wasn't appropriate
MF: I accepted I shouldn't have left anything and I forgot and that's a breach of clean desk policy.
MF: I don't think it's an inappropriate pamphlet
OD: then you had meeting you recorded without permission
MF: I'd mentioned verbally
OD: ...and you already had litigation in mind
MF: no
OD: you referred extensively to the quality act
OD: you said you don't think the treatment was justified
MF: yes
OD: you quote from a barrister who says a belief or disbelief would fall in the protected category and not the same as mockery. By the date you knew there was a legal argument
MF: yes
MF: I didn't know if my belief was covered by equality act but I did know it might be covered.
OD: page 1861,(reads) Mark wants you to continue to work as a consultant
MF: he didn't talk about the laminate project
OD: but CGD work was still being offered to you
MF: yes
OD: (reads) so he gives 3 reasons, the policies say has the right for gender identity, second you'd offended people, third that was the general consensus. You argue CGD refuses to accept the protected characteristic of sex and say it's perverse
MF: yes
BC points out certain context should be read out.
EJ: I think it's arid debate either way because we can read what is there
OD: you spoke to a former employment lawyer that day and had 38 min convo
OD: reads part of statement. So you had talked about advancing a legal case against CGD
MF: no that was me I was asking what I should do next
OD: so you didn't want to bring a legal case at that time
MF: I was thinking about what to do next
OD: you're not obliged to reveal advice from spoke to someone with legal advice
MF: it was a mum at the school gate
ID: again not to disclose your advice, did you know times (missed)
MF: no I didnt know the Equality Act covered certain things
OD: and why did you need a written confirmation?
MF: I wanted a written confirmation from masood.
OD: (reads maya's letter to MA) you're trying to bait him to say something that would help your case
MF: I wasn't going to litigate at that point

OD: you say you've not been contracted as part of the team. You say it's been downgraded again.. I di not feel its acceptable and going to turn it down.
MF: I guess i had. I had mixed feelings
OD: in the rest of the email your trying to divert funding
MF: if they were still interested jn my work I wanted to knw if anyone else was...the offer had only been made verbally to me and I wanted the offer made in writing.
OD: you're trying to divert funding before discussing with CGD
OD: .. .you went behind their back to vishal to take their work away from them
MF: I hadn't made a formal decision I was exploring my options
OD: page 9105, this was sent after while you trying to divert funding
OD: we see MA say that your position would not be renewed and the email address would end
MF:...yes I took that as final
Od: he says nothing about the consultancy does he
MF: no
OD: this is the email you sent to 39 people, your goodbye email I'll call it, and you say that offers had been reminded but you don't say the contract
MH: Because I didn't have that
OD: I'm going to stop you there it's about you understood or belueved
OD: the reason you don't mention the contract because you knew it hadn't been removed
MF: no I was waiting for that
OD: and you didn't write to MA
MF: I had already written and had not responded
OD: you had something published and an article in Sunday Times,
MF: the legal claim had steady been put in
OD: shst were you doing before this
MF: I didn't know I had employment rights and tweeted it and mentioned it lost my job. At that point I was contacted by feminist lawyers
MF: the day I tweeted that to the day I put the claim in was 8 days

Adjourned for ten minutes
We are back. EJ reminds everyone of the restricted reporting order.

EJ passes to BC
BC: I've got 5 short areas to cover.
MF: letter from Amanda
BC: that's right
BC: it was put to you this letter was specifically from CGD US not CGDE as well. Look at page 486, email from Amanda refers to providing an occasional office in london
BC: then it says attending lunches in DC or when in London. Then you asked how you should describe the affiliation and told just CGD. Was your understanding it one or both entities
MF: both entities
BC asks about going into the office
MF: for research staff they had to be there on a Thursday

B: third area about questions you were asked about external consultants, you described how you supervised their work in practice but agreed you didn't have authority. Look at 370
BC: this is part of the handbook of CGD and there are categories for independent contractors, then authority to enter into contracts rests solely with presidents or delegated staff person.
BC: What was your understanding whether ppl were employees of CGD or CGDE could enter into contracts with external consultants

MF: (missed) it had to go up the chain to be signed off and probably by Ellen
BC: my 4th area, p.876
BC: it's the fair play for women pamphlet and you were taken to 177 about the proposals of the Gender Recognition Act were not intending to change the equality act and it wasn't quite clear.
Take you to 883 in the pamphlet where can see it explicitly said the government has confirmed these special rules but we can see... (missed) what was your view of the proposed changes to the GRA on single sex spaces.
MF: similar to here that changing the definition of sex or male and female to be self defined gender, would make implementation of rules dufficult. there were legitimate concerns

BC: about Philip bunce and part time cross dresser
BC: take you to 619, this is a profile of philop bunce and the introductory part 'for me my trans side is limited to gender expression as I'm happy with my assigned gender' which is male. Tell me if I'm wrong he's not unhappy with being male and says he likes to dress up
BC: an article he'd written for financial news...on page 2171, i have no desire to transition it doesn't affect my physical make...the best analogy is choosing what clothes I feel like this... describes gender fluid and doesn't like transvestite
BC: do either of those identify the source of what you said earlier.
MF: he mentions twice wearing a dress and high heels and says its synonymous with a woman wearing heels one day and flats the next. I dint think it's an insult to say man in heels it's his own description.
BC: that is the end of your evidence Miss forstater
EJ: I’ll just check there nothing else, no, well that concludes your evidence MF and you are free to talk about it now. We will adjourn until 10am on Monday.
Thank you for following #ForstaterTribunal with us this week and all of your appreciative and supportive comments.

Have a great weekend from everyone here at @tribunaltweets and we look forward to bringing you more #openjustice next week.

See you on Monday at 10am.
@threadreaderapp please unroll

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Tribunal Tweets at #ForstaterTribunal

Tribunal Tweets at #ForstaterTribunal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @tribunaltweets

Mar 11
Good morning and welcome to Day 5 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Forstarter vs CGD.

I'm @wommando and we're expecting to start with Maya Forstater continuing to give her evidence. Catch up here:…
Abbrevs used:

Maya Forstater (MF) & counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

Respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD)

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
C3: Complainant 3
Here is Maya Forstater's redacted witness statement:…

Read 130 tweets
Mar 10
Welcome back to Day 4 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Forstater v CGD. We will be resuming with Claimant Maya Forstater giving her evidence at 2pm. Catch up with this morning here:…
Abbrevs used: Maya Forstater (MF) & counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

Respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Respondent counsel is Olivia Dobbie (OD)
EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
C3: Complainant 3
We are waiting to start, meanwhile here is Maya Forstater's redacted witness statement:…
Read 90 tweets
Mar 10
Good morning and welcome to Day 4 of #ForstaterTribunal, the case of Maya Forstater v CGD.
I'm @wommando live tweeting and we're expecting to begin with reporting instructions from the clerk. Catch up with yesterday here:


Abbrevs used:

Maya Forstater (MF) & her counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

The respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD), Cloisters.

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
EJ: good morning we don't have our clerk so I will give brief instructions. It's is an offence contrary to contempt of court act to record or screenshot but it doesn't stop reporting of the proceedings.
Read 115 tweets
Mar 10
The Interim Cass report is published.…
" Key points – context

The rapid increase in the number of children requiring support and the complex case-mix means that the current clinical model, with a single national provider, is not sustainable in the longer term. >>
"We need to know more about the population being referred and outcomes. There has not been routine and consistent data collection, which means it is not possible to accurately track the outcomes and pathways that children and young people take through the service. >>
Read 16 tweets
Mar 9
OD: really, I do disagree, even in respect to the evidence BC refers to. There's nothing wrong with these individuals saying they were fundraising as there were many others.
BC points EJ to the document
BC: were now on draft 4 as OD as on the hoof redrafted it
EJ: is there any life left in the original application? Is there any use to the original application which seeks to not publish names and emails
OD: I take BC's point about rewording and I apologise there have been various iterations and BC shouldn't suggest that's improper. The new doc doesn't stop people reporting the fundraising activities but will protect their privacy
Read 30 tweets
Mar 9
Good morning & welcome to Day 3 of #ForstaterTribunal, Forstater v CGD. I'm @Wommando, live tweeting for you today.

Day 1 & 2 were reading days & CGD's application for a Restricted Reporting Order: & will resume this morning @10AM
Abbrevs used:

Maya Forstater (MF) & her counsel Ben Cooper QC (BC), assisted by Anya Palmer (AP)

The respondents: CGD Europe (CGDE), (CGD), & Masood Ahmed (MA), President of CGD.

Counsel for respondents is Olivia Dobbie (OD), Cloisters.

EJ: Employment Judge
P: Panel member
As is the case with live tweeting and the lightening speed we must go, undoubtedly there will be typos, and they will be rectified at the end of the day. We thank you for your support in our efforts of bringing you #OpenJustice. We're here and ready to go at 10am.
Read 86 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!